My rant on today's pop music

I was looking up some information, and came upon this interesting data on the songs that have stayed at no. 1 for the longest period of time. Almost every song on this list is what I would consider a "modern era" pop song (1995 or newer). The question is, what does this mean in terms of the quality of pop music today?

Most weeks at number one

16 weeks
Mariah Carey and Boyz II Men — "One Sweet Day" (1995)

14 weeks
Whitney Houston — "I Will Always Love You" (1992)
Boyz II Men — "I'll Make Love to You" (1994)
Los del Río — "Macarena" (Bayside Boys mix) (1996)
Elton John — "Candle in the Wind 1997" / "Something About the Way You Look Tonight" (1997)
Mariah Carey — "We Belong Together" (2005)
The Black Eyed Peas — "I Gotta Feeling" (2009)

13 weeks
Boyz II Men — "End of the Road" (1992)
Brandy and Monica — "The Boy Is Mine" (1998)

12 weeks
Santana featuring Rob Thomas — "Smooth" (1999)
Eminem — "Lose Yourself" (2002-2003)
Usher featuring Lil Jon and Ludacris — "Yeah!" (2004)
The Black Eyed Peas — "Boom Boom Pow" (2009)
 
I was looking up some information, and came upon this interesting data on the songs that have stayed at no. 1 for the longest period of time. Almost every song on this list is what I would consider a "modern era" pop song (1995 or newer). The question is, what does this mean in terms of the quality of pop music today?

I don't think it says anything about quality, but it does suggest a tightening of radio and video clip playlists.

A few tracks I like a lot there, though - Candle in the Wind, Loose Yourself and Smooth.
 
Pop music changes all the time. At coming up 23 I like to think I have quite a wide range on music taste, on my ipod I have everything from 36 Crazyfist to Tears For Fears. However one thing that really scared me, that not to long ago I went to visit my parents and my 6 year old sister was shaking along to a recent pop video. Which I do not approve of. Some of the lyrics are made by some very closed minded people, talking about basically just getting rich and sleeping with lots of girls. These people are NOT musicians, and are not the sort of role models we want our younger generation to try to aspire to. When I was 6 I loved Michael Jackson, I listened to a lot of my mum's records suc as the Bee Gees, Beach Boys, The Beatles ect. this great music is what made me want to be a musician, as I was always hitting pots and pans as a toddler my mum put me into drum lessons.
I love music, it is the one language that everyone understands. I have gotten my sisters into Blink 182 now which makes me very happy, as they are my favorite band as Dude Ranch album was the first I ever bought.


Anyways thats my Rant
 
Who, despite his talent, is perhaps not such a great role model either:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTJEBex2jvM

:)

Somebody had to teach grammar school kids how to masterbate, and Michael Jackson was up for the task. :p

I was talking with a guy yesterday who is a musician, quite well educated. He went to conservatory. He's in his 20's and said his favorite decade in pop music is the 1990s, Tupac, Biggie, Lauryn Hill. For him, this music had something to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3_dOWYHS7I


He thinks its a white/black thing, because he said that when you ask black people what they are listening to the will say Black Eyed Peas, or Usher, etc. new artists. But when you ask white people, they will tell you some old school band from back in the day, even the kids. "It would seem," he said , "that rock music stopped developing in the late 80s, where as R and B has continued to grow and change with the times."
 
He thinks its a white/black thing, because he said that when you ask black people what they are listening to the will say Black Eyed Peas, or Usher, etc. new artists. But when you ask white people, they will tell you some old school band from back in the day, even the kids. "It would seem," he said , "that rock music stopped developing in the late 80s, where as R and B has continued to grow and change with the times."

Funny thing, a few years ago on a different forum someone posted a rant about today's hip-hop isn't as good as yesterday's hip hop and why don't radio stations cater to people who grew up with the genre but can't stand the new stuff.

Years ago, I spent a summer playing 3 times a week with some much older guys playing old R&B at a bar. I was way out of place being the 24 year old long haired white kid, and I couldn't even say I knew most of the tunes. But after a few months I had a large stack of cash.
 
Who, despite his talent, is perhaps not such a great role model either:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTJEBex2jvM

:)

Well played love.


But I do have to say, I think it was just a load of bs about MJ, touching those kids, I don't want to make this a "is he guilty?" thread, but if what is my opinion is true, then the guy had his trust betrayed by some degenerate family, his fans gone, his money gone and in a huge amount of debt, plus everyone taking the piss out of him.


Anyway back to conversation. I think the rock genre is as good as it was going to be, at the moment the best band to come out in the past couple of years has been Mumford and Sons, who came from our mighty ol' england. Come to think of it we have actually come out with every type of great rock group there is...

The Beatles
The Who
The Kinks
The Rolling Stones
Queen
Phil Collins
Led Zepplin
Black Sabbath
Iron Maiden
Sex Pistols
David Bowie
Joy Division
The Smiths
The Clash
The Police
Duran Duran
Fleetwood Mac
Radiohead
Muse
The Libertines
The Stone Roses
The Small Faces
U2
Pink Floyed
Deep Purple
Def Leppard

Seriously America step up your game haha :)
 
Last edited:
Well played sir.

Ahem - try madam! :p


But I do have to say, I think it was just a load of bs about MJ, touching those kids, I don't want to make this a "is he guilty?" thread, but if what is my opinion is true, then the guy had his trust betrayed by some degenerate family, his fans gone, his money gone and in a huge amount of debt, plus everyone taking the piss out of him.

Irregardless of the accusations, I still say that most parents don't want their kids grabbing their crotch in public, having mountains of plastic surgery, danging their children over balconies for photographers, living in oxygen tents, having little boys as bedmates (platonic or whatever) ... he lived in an alternate universe.

Looking at that list I see great quite a few British performers who were deeply influenced by US artists like Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Elvis, Muddy Waters, Bob Dylan, The Byrds, Little Richard, Elmore James, Howling Wolf, Sun Ra's Arkestra (Pink Floyd) ... not to mention a host of jazz and Motown artists.

Not wanting to be contrary ... some of my favourite bands are in that list of yours :)
 
Ahem - try madam! :p

Edited, I do apologise

Irregardless of the accusations, I still say that most parents don't want their kids grabbing their crotch in public, having mountains of plastic surgery, danging their children over balconies for photographers, living in oxygen tents, having little boys as bedmates (platonic or whatever) ... he lived in an alternate universe.

Looking at that list I see great quite a few British performers who were deeply influenced by US artists like Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Elvis, Muddy Waters, Bob Dylan, The Byrds, Little Richard, Elmore James, Howling Wolf, Sun Ra's Arkestra (Pink Floyd) ... not to mention a host of jazz and Motown artists.

Not wanting to be contrary ... some of my favourite bands are in that list of yours :)

I see where you are coming from, but as you are most likely to be correct, some of those Bands/Artist that I have listed have influence a lot more musicians, I can't imagine how many Drummers here would say they have been directly influence by John Bonhams plaing, but it would be a hell of a lot. However you could say the same about Neil Peart. It's a tough one but I think we may still have the edge :)
 
I mentioned Mumford and Sons earlier in the thread and it went over like a lead balloon then as well.

One of the things I noticed about Brit pop is that when you talk about the major figures, you are most often talking about bands. You have the big 5, Beatles, Stones, Who, Zep, Floyd from the classic period, and add Queen. Even the biggest American band, The Eagles, was never as big as those bands in their hey day. I don't know why that is although it might have something to do with a socialist ethic. When you mention American artists from that period, you are usually talking about individuals, Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, Hendrix, Stevie Wonder, James Brown and Billy Joel. Michael Jackson anyone. You also has Motown and Stax artists;Sam and Dave, Otis Redding, Aretha, Smokey Robinson, Diana Ross and Marvin Gaye. Of course Michael Jackson and Stevie both started on Motown.

But certainly American has produced no lack of bands in the last forty years, from the horn bands, Chicago, Earth Wind and Fire, Tower of Power to the rock bands Aerosmith, Van Halen, Guns and Roses, Metallica. Who could forget all those great soul bands of the 1960s and 1970s, Temptations, O'Jay's, Chi-Lites, Isley Brothers, Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes.
 
It's cool, Boom, I liked the "well played" bit :) With rock I lean toward Brit music, but I'm also a big fan of some American/international jazz music. Not sure if being an older Aussie with a European background makes a difference.

Ken, which of the old groups do you think have had the biggest influences on modern pop (the stuff we seem to love to hate)? I'm thinking Kraftwerk was one.
 
I think Kraftwerk are undeniably the single most influential electronic group out there, but only through osmosis. It took the industry ten years to catch up with them, but they didn't develop enough to keep ahead - I think after 'Computer World' they started sounding dated, but the ten years before that are quite something.

Brian Eno would be another obvious candidate, but a lot of his music is less clearly definable and hence the influence harder to define. 'My Life in the Bush of Ghosts' with David Byrne is one album that took the industry another ten years to come to terms with - it's just simply amazing in scope and influence.
 
Americans are really big on songwriting, and even many of the biggest bands are really a songwriter or two and a bunch of guys. When it works best like with the Eagles, CSNY, Grateful Dead or The Band you had a band of songwriters drummer included. Of course, many bands list all the members as co-authors of the songs, Deep Purple, U2, or Green Day.

The whole concept of a band is tenuous from that perspective. I think it's funny that people complain about bands touring with one or two original members. There's this band King Crimson, and I think they only have one original member. One of the things I liked about Genesis, Crimson and Yes was that they were truly a band, all the members squeezing in ideas and trying to make them work. Yes always sounded like they were going to explode from the massive amount of talent in the band all squeezed in to the Yes box. Then people get squeezed out.

You can't count one band or artists as the biggest influence on pop music because there are so many subgenres; but certainly U2 and the Edge's guitar in particular are a huge influence on a lot of young bands. I would agree that the minimalist thing is still so big going back to Eno from Cale; it made its way into rock n roll.

The point I have been trying to make. to take the question outside of the role of the listener renders it moot and meaningless. I heard a joke the other day. What do music and a box of chocolate have in common? You have to get rid of the rappers. Would it surprise you that a white guy was telling that joke, and the guy who said that 1990s music had the most well thought out messages of any decade was black? Not a surprise.

I think it gets down to what Bermuda was asking in the beginning of the thread, is the song any good. You have that one aspect of popular music, which is the great song. you also have the other side, which is the great dance tune. I wouldn't sit around listening to Madonna or Lady Gaga, but lay it on the dance floor and that is a different story. I bet that most of the people who criticize today's pop music haven't been out on a dance floor in decades and they probably look like they could use it.
 
Last edited:
Americans are really big on songwriting, and even many of the biggest bands are really a songwriter or two and a bunch of guys. When it world best like with the Eagles, CSNY, Grateful Dead or The Band you had a band of songwriters drummer included. Of course many bands list all the members as co-authors of the songs, Deep Purple, U2, or Green Day.

The whole concept of a band is tenuous from that perspective. I think it's funny that people complain about bands touring with one or two original members. There's this band King Crimson, and I think they only have one original member. One of the things I liked about Genesis, Crimson and Yes was that they were truly a band, all the members squeezing in ideas and trying to make them work. Yes always sounded like they were going to explode from the massive amount of talent in the band all squeezed in to the Yes box. Then people get squeezed out.

You can't count one band or artists as the biggest influence on pop music because there are so many subgenres; but certainly U2 and the Edge's guitar in particular are a huge influence on a lot of young bands. I would agree that the minimalist thing is still so big going back to Eno from Cale; it made its way into rock n roll.

The point I have been trying to make. to take the question outside of the role of the listener renders it moot and meaningless. I heard a joke the other day. What do music and a box of chocolate have in common? You have to get rid of the rappers. Would it surprise you that a white guy was telling that joke, and the guy who said that 1990s music had the most well thought out messages of any decade was black? Not a surprise.

I think it gets down to what Bermuda was asking in the beginning of the thread, is the song any good. You have that one aspect of popular music, which is the great song. you also have the other side, which is the great dance tune. I wouldn't sit around listening to Madonna or Lady Gaga, but lay it on the dance floor and that is a different story. I bet that most of the people who criticize today's pop music haven't been out on a dance floor in decades and they probably look like they could use it.

Great post.

It's true, after a few too many lagers I will dance to anything, but I also "take a leak" on a wall when I am a bit drunk so bearing that in mind that we do a lot of silly stuff when we are drunk.
 
I don't think there is any R&B in most pop music today. Long gone is the Motown sound that dominated pop music such as Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Temptations, Supremes, etc
 
INOG, do a search for Ce Lo Green in YouTube ...

I think Kraftwerk are undeniably the single most influential electronic group out there, but only through osmosis. It took the industry ten years to catch up with them, but they didn't develop enough to keep ahead - I think after 'Computer World' they started sounding dated, but the ten years before that are quite something.

Funny, so much music in the mainstream of the UK and US yet a few quirky Germans did something with roots that spread through a huge percentage of today's mainstream.

On the other hand, Grandmaster Flash's influence is huge too.
 
I wonder if anyone got upset when Bill Wither's Lean on Me was remade by Mud (1976), Al Jarreau (1985), DC Talk (1992), Michael Bolton (1993), Bonnie Tyler (1999), Anne Murray (1999), and The Temptations?

,
 
Tonight's (or last night's depending on when you read this) episode of South Park was dedicated to this thread.

It was an absolute hilarious send up of how one's perception of music changes with each generations and with just getting older.
 
Isn't it about time this country had a national debate on pop music? The pop charts are a farse. If anybody still follows the Top 40 (or Top 75) there is a very low turnover of songs resulting from a fall in the number of new entries every week. The current Top 40 is stale! So much of today's pop is tuneless, talentless trash. Perhaps I'm showing my age but very decade of pop music from the 1950s - 2000s was far superior to the banal 'music' that dominates today's charts. Hopefully the next generation of teenagers will turn their backs on this tripe. Personally, i don;t see the sitation changing much ; ' crisis, whatr crisis?' mentality still prevails in the music industry.
 
Back
Top